No, what is ridiculous is buying into the idea that random development could create two distinct and different species that are compatible with each other.

Speciation occurs when two similar organisms are no longer able to produce fertile offspring. Technically if Neanderthal is another species then Humans would not be able to produce fertile offspring with them. So if they are a different species then 12ax7 is right. However, blood lines that would lead to Neanderthals would be compatible with Humans until that speciation event.

Then, you consider lions and tigers to belong to the same species classification.

No, what is ridiculous is buying into the idea that random development could create two distinct and different species that are compatible with each other.

Speciation occurs when two similar organisms are no longer able to produce fertile offspring. Technically if Neanderthal is another species then Humans would not be able to produce fertile offspring with them. So if they are a different species then 12ax7 is right. However, blood lines that would lead to Neanderthals would be compatible with Humans until that speciation event.

Then, you consider lions and tigers to belong to the same species classification.

No, what is ridiculous is buying into the idea that random development could create two distinct and different species that are compatible with each other.

Speciation occurs when two similar organisms are no longer able to produce fertile offspring. Technically if Neanderthal is another species then Humans would not be able to produce fertile offspring with them. So if they are a different species then 12ax7 is right. However, blood lines that would lead to Neanderthals would be compatible with Humans until that speciation event.

Then, you consider lions and tigers to belong to the same species classification.

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/ˌlaɪˈtaɪɡən/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/ˌtaɪˈtaɪɡən/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.[citation needed]

No, what is ridiculous is buying into the idea that random development could create two distinct and different species that are compatible with each other.

Speciation occurs when two similar organisms are no longer able to produce fertile offspring. Technically if Neanderthal is another species then Humans would not be able to produce fertile offspring with them. So if they are a different species then 12ax7 is right. However, blood lines that would lead to Neanderthals would be compatible with Humans until that speciation event.

Then, you consider lions and tigers to belong to the same species classification.

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/ˌlaɪˈtaɪɡən/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/ˌtaɪˈtaɪɡən/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.[citation needed]

Yes, there have been a very few rare cases where the hybrids between tigers and lions have not been sterile. But, that doesn't change the fact that those two animals rarely breed successfully. The offspring are generally short-lived and the few which survive to adulthood are almost always sterile.

Look, it's very simple. A species is a population adapted to a particular niche. If too much genetic variation occurs, the adaptation becomes less successful. This is why species are protected by a reproductive barrier.

So, makes you so sure the situation between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals was not similar if perhaps a little less extreme?

12ax7 wrote:

Konglishman wrote:

12ax7 wrote:

Konglishman wrote:

comm wrote:

kinship wrote:

No, what is ridiculous is buying into the idea that random development could create two distinct and different species that are compatible with each other.

Speciation occurs when two similar organisms are no longer able to produce fertile offspring. Technically if Neanderthal is another species then Humans would not be able to produce fertile offspring with them. So if they are a different species then 12ax7 is right. However, blood lines that would lead to Neanderthals would be compatible with Humans until that speciation event.

Then, you consider lions and tigers to belong to the same species classification.

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[10]

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[11]

At the Alipore Zoo in India, a female tiglon named Rudrani, born in 1971, was successfully mated to an Asiatic Lion named Debabrata. The rare, second generation hybrid was called a litigon (/ˌlaɪˈtaɪɡən/). Rudhrani produced seven litigons in her lifetime. Some of these reached impressive sizes—a litigon named Cubanacan (died 1991) weighed at least 363 kilograms (800 lb), stood 1.32 metres (4.3 ft) at the shoulder, and was 3.5 metres (11 ft) in total length.

Reports also exist of the similar titigon (/ˌtaɪˈtaɪɡən/), resulting from the cross between a female tiglon and a male tiger. Titigons resemble golden tigers but with less contrast in their markings. A female tiglon born in 1978, named Noelle, shared an enclosure in the Shambala Preserve with a male Siberian Tiger called Anton, due to the keepers' belief that she was sterile. In 1983 Noelle produced a titigon named Nathaniel. As Nathaniel was three-quarters tiger, he had darker stripes than Noelle and vocalized more like a tiger, rather than with the mix of sounds used by his mother. Being only about quarter-lion, Nathaniel did not grow a mane. Nathaniel died of cancer at the age of eight or nine years. Noelle also developed cancer and died soon after.[citation needed]

Yes, there have been a very few rare cases where the hybrids between tigers and lions have not been sterile. But, that doesn't change the fact that those two animals rarely breed successfully. The offspring are generally short-lived and the few which survive to adulthood are almost always sterile.

Look, it's very simple. A species is a population adapted to a particular niche. If too much genetic variation occurs, the adaptation becomes less successful. This is why species are protected by a reproductive barrier.

Although we can't prove that it didn't occur, archeological evidence does not place humans and neanderthals in close proximity to one another (look again at the previous link I provided). We also know that such interbreeding, even if it did occur, contributed to 0% of the modern European gene pool.

And bear in mind that none of the bones discovered at that site had lethal wounds. Neanderthals were not at war with humans. Living peacefully together for millenia yet you want to claim they all agreed to a no interracial sex rule?

And I mean race. or something similar. Because the fact that humans and neanderthals were 99.9% genetically identical makes them no different than any two humans on the earth today.

Its only the evolutionist agenda that seeks to try and portray neanderthal as some kind of vastly different divergent evolving form. It is merely agenda-driven speculation- an opinion- that they did not interbreed.

Evidence suggests they did.

Quote:

Pääbo's group analyzed the lengths of segments of Neanderthal DNA in modern Europeans to determine when Neanderthal genes may have mixed with those of modern humans. The date they came up with for the gene flow was 37,000 to 86,000 years ago, and most likely 47,000 to 65,000 years ago.

Comparisons of DNA sequences between Neandertals and present-day humans have shown that Neandertals share more genetic variants with non-Africans than with Africans. This could be due to interbreeding between Neandertals and modern humans when the two groups met subsequent to the emergence of modern humans outside Africa. However, it could also be due to population structure that antedates the origin of Neandertal ancestors in Africa. We measure the extent of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the genomes of present-day Europeans and find that the last gene flow from Neandertals (or their relatives) into Europeans likely occurred 37,000-86,000 years before the present (BP), and most likely 47,000-65,000 years ago. This supports the recent interbreeding hypothesis, and suggests that interbreeding may have occurred when modern humans carrying Upper Paleolithic technologies encountered Neandertals as they expanded out of Africa. http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2238

12Ax7 wrote:

We also know that such interbreeding, even if it did occur, contributed to 0% of the modern European gene pool.

Actually the modern European gene pool is precisely where neanderthal dna is concentrated.

Neanderthals were simply examples of the former greater genetic diversity of humans. Genetic diversity that has been lost via a bottleneck event. Thats why modern humans are remarkably genetically homogenous.

Did you even bother to read the links I provided? Better yet, did you read the ones you did?

"Archaeologists working on the site of Nahal Me’arot, or the Stream Cave, believe that 80,000 years ago this may have been the only place in the world where Neanderthals and early humans lived side by side, possibly even interbreeding."

Did you even bother to read the links I provided? Better yet, did you read the ones you did?

You need to be aware of the fact that archaeological dating is very subjective and easy to manipulate, along with being inaccurate. Then you need to be aware of the fact that archaeologists do not know much about any given sight. The fact that they do not get any manuscripts with the artifacts, bones or houses they dig up and the fact that most sites are not 100% complete. erosion, wars, construction, natural disasters play a part in destroying what information was left behind at any given site.

Neanderthals were not some evolutionary species that was not the fittest thus they did not survive. They were humans.

Did you even bother to read the links I provided? Better yet, did you read the ones you did?

You need to be aware of the fact that archaeological dating is very subjective and easy to manipulate, along with being inaccurate. Then you need to be aware of the fact that archaeologists do not know much about any given sight. The fact that they do not get any manuscripts with the artifacts, bones or houses they dig up and the fact that most sites are not 100% complete. erosion, wars, construction, natural disasters play a part in destroying what information was left behind at any given site.

Neanderthals were not some evolutionary species that was not the fittest thus they did not survive. They were humans.

No one disputes that Neanderthals were a human species. The term human really refers not just to Homo sapiens. It just so happens that Homo sapiens is the only surviving human species.

Did you even bother to read the links I provided? Better yet, did you read the ones you did?

You need to be aware of the fact that archaeological dating is very subjective and easy to manipulate, along with being inaccurate. Then you need to be aware of the fact that archaeologists do not know much about any given sight. The fact that they do not get any manuscripts with the artifacts, bones or houses they dig up and the fact that most sites are not 100% complete. erosion, wars, construction, natural disasters play a part in destroying what information was left behind at any given site.

Neanderthals were not some evolutionary species that was not the fittest thus they did not survive. They were humans.

We are well aware that archeologists are unable to pinpoint the age of bones to an exact year. We're also aware that neanderthals are considered a subspecies of the Homo sapiens or a closely related relative in the same genus, thus making them humans.

But, once again, there is no conclusive evidence which shows that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis interbred on a significant scale. Additionally, archeological evidence suggests that, in most instances, they did not cohabit. Of the sites it appears they have have cohabited, the possibility remains that they may have occupied them at different times.

It just so happens that Homo sapiens is the only surviving human species.

It seems you don't know what the word "species" means. A different species to humans would be something like..a tiger.
Actually neanderthal is claimed to be a subspecies.
And subspecies of all species can interbreed, of course.

12ax7 wrote:

But, once again, there is no conclusive evidence which shows that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis interbred on a significant scale.

There is no evidence to suggest that they didn't.

....Except for the evolutionist agenda that wishes to portray them as half-developed semi-apes. That is how evolutionists sought to depict them early on- as hairy primitive gorilla-types capable of only a few grunts.

In reality every consecutive discovery about them has only increased the evidence that they were entirely human. We now know that:

1. they talked and had language
2. They had brains as large as- and in many cases larger than- modern humans
3. They were skilled hunters and toolmakers
4. They performed advanced surgery including amputations
5. They buried their dead in rituals
6. They made music
7. They had human teeth and bones
8. They hunted and caught seals and dolphins with tools, cut the flesh and cooked it
9. They used cosmetics and body paint

Neanderthals were fully human.

The only consistent differences are in brow ridge, posture and forehead size. Such differences could easily have been caused by rickets, lack of vitamin D, and nutritional deprivations that would have been common to ice age climates. They could even have been caused by living to a great age. Biblical accounts of course state that humans used to live far longer than they do now.

There are many modern human populations today that vary greatly in size, build and even bone characteristics. Yet they are all entirely capable of interbreeding, and they are no more genetically distinct from eachother than neanderthals are from us.

12ax7 wrote:

Question is, why have Homo neanderthalensis become extinct?

The homogeneity of modern humans is down to a bottleneck event that eliminated much of former human genetic variation. A catastrophic event by which only few survived. Creationists point to the flood. Evolutionists also agree there has been such a devastating event, but they are looking for reasons other than ones that agree with creationism.